ESL Pathways: Mapping

the Whole Student

California Association for Institutional Research

November 7, 2019

Craig Hayward, Bakersfield College + The RP Group

Terra Morris, The RP Group

Mallory Newell, De Anza College + The RP Group

Terrence Willett, Cabrillo College + The RP Group

Overview

• Sankey Diagrams: Mapping ELL Student Pathways

• AB 705 Implications for ESL Students

• English Language Learner (ELL) Types

– International Students

– ELL US HS graduates

– Other Degree/Transfer-seeking ESL students

• Discussion

• Visualization technique used to display flow or movement

• Allows you to show complex processes visually

• Width of lines are proportional to overall quantity represented in

the diagram

• Interactive

• Powerful conversation starters

Why Sankey Diagrams?

• Data source: CCC Chancellor’s Office MIS data, credit and noncredit

course enrollments between fall 2012 and winter 2019

• Used Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio 17 to modify, quantify, and

create a final data file matching required specifications for Sankey diagram,

tracking CC ESL students’ pathways and progress through the ESL and

English sequences across six academic terms

• Researched and tested multiple free and trial versions of visualization

software capable of creating Sankey diagrams (R, Displayr, floWeaver)

• Selected Google Charts Sankey package: free, simple and straightforward,

easy to modify html code to add titles, colors and features using Notepad++

Method

R Google js(abridged)

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.gstatic.com/charts/loader.js"></script>

<div id="sankey_multiple" style="width: 10000px; height: 100%;"></div>

<script type="text/javascript">

google.charts.load("current", {packages:["sankey"]});

google.charts.setOnLoadCallback(drawChart);

function drawChart() {

var data = new google.visualization.DataTable();

data.addColumn('string', 'From');

data.addColumn('string', 'To');

data.addColumn('number', 'Weight');

data.addRows([

[ "CR ESL one level below", "Term1 TLEE", 581 ],

[ "CR ESL one level below", "Term1 CR one level below", 10853 ],

[ "Term1 TLEE", "Term1 TLEE success", 458 ],

[ "Term1 TLEE", "Term1 TLEE non-success", 123 ],

[ "Term1 CR one level below", "Term1 CR1 success", 8224 ],

Sample Google Charts html script used to create Sankey

diagrams

1. English Language Learner (ELL) U.S. High School

Graduates

2. International Students (IS)

3. Non-IS, non-U.S. high school graduate ESL students who

are degree/transfer seeking

Degree/Transfer-seeking ESL Student Types

that are Affected by AB 705

37%of ESL students fall

into one of these

three student types

For more on AB 705 go to:

https://assessment.cccco.edu/ab-705-implementation

ELL/ESL Throughput Data File Description

• 92 cohorts of students tracked forward for three years or,

sometimes, for one year (throughput cohorts)

– 555,625 noncredit students

– 328,403 credit students

• Focal sample time period 2004 through 2018

• Further disaggregated by student types and/or

degree/transfer-seeking status

U.S. High School Graduates

High School English Language Learners

• How do ELL students with less than 4 years of high school fare in

transfer-level English?

• Compare ELL high school graduates who started at one-level

below in ESL to those who started in transfer-level English.

• Citizenship status is not related to US high school students’

throughput in transfer-level English.

U.S. High School Graduates’ Transfer-level English Throughput

by Years in U.S. High School, ELL Designation, and Community

College English Language Arts Pathway (excludes US Citizens)

30% 30%25% 26%

31% 33% 29%35%

45% 48% 49% 48%

81% 83% 81% 82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Just Sr. Jr.+Sr. So.+Jr.+Sr. Four years

ELL in HS, ESL in CC Not ELL designated in HS, ESL in CC

ELL in HS, English in College 1 yr. post-AB 705 TLC throughput (projected)

ELL US HS Graduates Have Higher Throughput on

the English Path than the ESL Path

86%

18%

87%

21%

85%

20%

84%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Senior year only(English path)

Senior year only(ESL path)

Jr. + Sr. (Englishpath)

Jr. + Sr. (ESL path) So., Jr. & Sr.(English path)

So., Jr. & Sr. (ESLpath)

All 4 yrs. (Englishpath)

All 4 yrs.

One-year TLC Throughput for ELL US High School Graduates Disaggregated by English vs. ESL Path, All Citizenship Statuses, and Years of U.S. High School

US Citizen Permanent Resident Temporary Resident Refugee/Asylee Student Visa (F-1 or M-1) Other Unknown Total

High School English Language Learners• Can we account for differences in high school GPA between

students who started in transfer-level English composition at the

community college and those who did not?

• Derive expected throughput of ELL high school graduates who

start in transfer-level English after adjusting for differences in

high school GPA.

• Derive expected one-year throughput rate of students who start

in one-level below in ESL and then transition to transfer-level

English composition.

20%25%

38%

84%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ESL path (n =2,296)

Only at collegesallowing directtransition into

TLE (n = 1,725)

Second classactually was

TLE (n = 708)

English path -Starting at TLE

(n = 33,491)

English path -Starting at TLE(GPA weighted

estimate)

1-yr. Throughput of ELL US HS Graduates: 1-level below ESL vs. Transfer-level English

ESL path from 1 level below - One-yr. throughput rate

Transfer-level English path - One-yr. throughput rate

English Language Learners:

ESL vs. English Pathways

Discussion• Given how common it is for ELL US HS grads to enter

mainstream English, what types of ESL support will

improve the success of English Language Learners?

• What does the evidence suggest regarding which English

Language Arts pathway will maximize the probability of

completion of transfer-level English composition?

• Is the ESL label particularly problematic for generation

1.5 students, as suggested by Ortmeier-Hooper (2008)?

International Students

International Student TLE Throughput Rates

ESL path = 28,584

English path = 16,958

22%

34%

50%

58% 61%

95%

29%

41%

62%66%

88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5+ levels below 4 levels below 3 levels below 2 levels below 1 level below Transfer level

ESL path English path

Majority of International Students on English

Path Start at Transfer-level

ESL path = 28,584

English path = 16,958

5%

13%

28% 27%25%

1%0.5%3%

19%

25%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

5+ levels below 4 levels below 3 levels below 2 levels below 1 level below Transfer level

ESL path English path

Asian Language Group Represents Large

Majority of International Students

ESL path = 28,584

English path = 16,958

Asian, 58%

MENA/ European, 12%

Hispanic, 3%

African, 2%

East Indian, 1%

Filipino, 1%

Other, 1%

Unknown, 23%

Other Degree/Transfer-seeking ESL StudentsNon-International, Non-US HS Graduates

Third Group ESL Students

• Do some colleges have higher throughput rates for ESL

students who do not have US high school diplomas and

who are not international students?

• If so, what is driving the difference in throughput rates?

College’s Average ESL Starting Level and

Throughput Rate are Highly Correlated

R² = 0.504

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

-6.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00

Avera

ge T

LE

Thro

ughput

in 3

yrs

.

Average ESL Levels Below

N = 47 colleges with 30+ students of

this type

Credit ESL students with no diploma

Third Group ESL Students

• To what extent are demographic differences among the

groups of degree/transfer-seeking “third group” ESL

students related to the observed differences among

colleges in throughput rates?

College throughput rates for degree-seeking

ESL students with no diploma

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

TL

E th

rou

gh

pu

t fr

om

ES

L (

co

lleg

e m

ea

n)

Regression Adjusted (Press) Predicted Value

N = 47 colleges with 30+ students of this type – no U.S. HS diploma

Adj. R2 = 0.68

Independent Variable = Starting ESL level

Controls = age, language group, citizenship status

What lessons can we draw?

• There is an interplay between ESL placement practices

and ESL curriculum such that at colleges where third

group ESL students are typically placed into higher

levels, the average throughput rate is commensurately

higher.

Inter-college variation in average starting ESL level and TLE

throughput for degree/transfer-seeking students with no US diploma

N = 88 colleges with 30+

“third group” students

16%

25%

31%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

< 4 levels below >= 4 and < 3 levelsbelow

>= 3 levels below

Three-year Throughput Rates

Third Group Analysis Highlights

• Not all colleges have a significant “third group” population

• Some colleges are more effectively moving this group of

students to and through TLC than others

– How do assessment, placement and curricular structures

correlate with higher levels of student throughput?

• Colleges that place most “third group” students at or around 3 levels

below have the highest average throughput for this group (27%)

• College throughput rates drop by about ten percentage points for

each level below three that colleges place most students (i.e., 17%

for 4 levels below, 7% for 5+ levels below)

Discussion

MMAP Research Team

Terrence Willett

The RP Group

twillett@rpgroup.org

Mallory Newell

The RP Group

newellmallory@deanza.edu

Craig Hayward

The RP Group

chayward@rpgroup.org

Inge Bond

The RP Group

Ibond@rpgroup.org

John Hetts

CCCCO

jhetts@edresults.org

Daniel Lamoree

ERP

dlamoree@edresults.org

Andrew Kretz

The RP Group

akretz@rpgroup.org

Loris Fagioli

The RP Group

lfagioli@ivc.edu

Addendum: Descriptive slides

Relative sizes of the various ESL student subtypes

Relative Sizes of First-time English Language Arts Pathways in 2017-18 for

Degree/Transfer Seeking ELL/ESL Students

About 87% of ELL US High

School graduates enter

mainstream English at the

community college.

TLC Throughput by Credit/Noncredit and

Student Journey Type

35%

11%8%

12%

1% 1%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Degree-Transfer Short term CTE Adult Ed

Credit Noncredit

Nota Bene: AB 705 only

applies to ESL students

who are degree/transfer-

seeking.